El aumento de vídeos en directo publicados en redes sociales durante congresos de urología: es hora de reflexionar sobre sus ventajas y daños potenciales. Un estudio de ESUT-YAU
Actas Urológicas Españolas, December 2019
J. Gómez Rivas, M.E. Rodríguez-Socarras, G. Cacciamani, A. Dourado Meneses, Z. Okhunov, M. van Gurp, J. Bloemberg, F. Porgiplia, E. Liatsikos, D. Veneziano
Social Media (SoMe) offers excellent opportunities for scientific knowledge dissemination and its use has been extended in urology. However, there is controversy about its use. Live videos shared trough SoMe platforms offer many advantages, but at the same time disadvantages and potential risks including confidentiality, copyright infringement, among others. We aimed to assess the activity of shared videos on SoMe during urological conferences. A comprehensive study of videos shared on SoMe during European Association of Urology congress was carried out from January 2016 to June 2018. The online tools Symplur (Symplur.com), Twitter, Periscope and YouTube were searched to collect data. Number of videos, transmission time and views were analyzed. Videos were classified as live or pre-recorded and as scientific or non-scientific. SPSS V22.0 was used to process data. We identified 108 videos shared on SoMe, 292.42minutes of transmission, 67732 views. 79 of 108 (73%) were live streaming videos, 78 (72%) of which were considered scientific vs. 30 (28%) non-scientific. An increase was observed trough the years of study (2016-2018) in transmission time (p=.031) number of videos, views (p=.018) and live videos (p=.019) during the annual congress of the European Association of Urology. Shared videos on SoMe from urological conferences are increasing. These provide advantages for communication, scientific dissemination and expand the scope of conferences. However, there is potential risk of sharing information in real time; that could not be in line with the recommendations for appropriate use of social networks.
|Members of the public||2||100%|
|Readers by professional status||Count||As %|
|Readers by discipline||Count||As %|